BRIGHTLEY v. CITY OF NEW YORK

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Neither the defendant nor the plaintiff established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Although a defendant has no duty to remove snow during an ongoing storm, a defendant may be held liable where that party's snow-removal efforts create a hazardous condition or exacerbate a natural hazard created by the storm ( see Grillo v. Brooklyn Hosp., 280 AD2d 452 ). Under the circumstances, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the defendant's snow-removal efforts created the icy condition or exacerbated a natural hazard created by the storm.